What changed since last check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details about the output (score movement, engines gained/lost, etc.) without contradicting annotations. A 4 is appropriate as it enhances understanding beyond structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then output and prerequisite. Zero redundancy, every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values (deltas with specific examples). It also covers prerequisite and usage context. All critical information for a tool with moderate complexity is provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides for 'since' and 'domain'. The mention of return types is useful but not parameter-specific.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it reports changes in AI visibility and audit, using the verb 'Report' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the prerequisite 'track_site' and listing specific delta types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when someone asks...' with concrete examples. Also notes requirement that domain must be tracked, with cross-reference to sibling tool 'track_site'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.